Titlebook: Cyberspace and International Relations; Theory, Prospects an Jan-Frederik Kremer,Benedikt Müller Book 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelber

Halfhearted

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0 the aftermath of its detection, experts and media personnel alike were quick in putting the implicative tag ‘act of war’ onto the use of the malicious program, although no competent justification for such labelling was offered. The following chapter aims to clarify the international debate by prese

Bucket

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0ich its political nature must exist, an act of war has to be characteristically violent and has instrumental purposefulness. Therefore cyberwar is generally regarded as a conduct of action that simply doesn’t match with these Clausewitzian criteria of war. However during the last two decades, with t

impaction

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0dimensional peacekeeping operations tasked with rebuilding states and their institutions during and after conflict. However, peacekeeping today is lagging behind the changes marking our time. Big Data, including social media, and the many actors in the field may provide peacekeeping and peacebuildin

鸣叫

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0k on US cyber security policy has argued for or against deterrence theory as a basis for US cyber security policy. Deterrence theory, as a state level theory of national security, focuses attention on strategic choice enabling policymakers to manage state level responses to perceived threats. The pr

confide

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0al, networked forms of organisation. Responses to large-scale botnets show the prevalence of networked governance and provide insight into its strengths and limitations. Networked governance can be defined as a semi-permanent, voluntary negotiation system that allows interdependent actors to opt for

约会

biosphere

William W. Baber,Anshuman Kharebalanced efforts to promote mobility of capital, people, and goods and services with security measures to protect fixed investment and national assets, these efforts suggest a shift in the mix of openness and control. While this balance has long been a part of states’ foreign policy and internationa

capsaicin

Anshuman Khare,William W. Babering, advancing, and communicating work on cyberspace within global affairs. This distinct tendency today has technical cyber scholarship partially blind and deaf to important political ramifications while political cyber work remains partially illiterate and mute on cyberspace’s technical complexity

松驰

植物学

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6948-0f governing, and brings empirical evidence of the dominant discourse(s) of security in the cyberspace in the United Nations (UN) ambit. It reveals that, despite the common acknowledgement of cyber dangers as imminent, transnational and very diffuse, an inclusive and dialectical approach to cybersecurity is not yet in place.